Unconventional Religion

[DeistPaladin]

By Christianity, I mean its early followers, and not the sad imitation of the church that we see today.

I always thought it was only Protestants (and Muslims) who fantasized about romantic notions of an "early church" and how much more pure and good it was over the modern corrupt version. It's interesting to hear that Catholics also share the fantasy.

Protestants like to imagine, without much basis in fact, that Jesus established a pure church, devoid of the corruptions of Constantine and the later established Roman Catholic Church. Their justification for their split with Rome was not just that Rome was in need of reform but that the entire sect had lost its way and that the various Protestant denominations were attempting to get back to the simple, pure "early" church. Thus, they were not rebelling. Rather, they claimed to be the True Christians ™.

Muslims also use a variation on this fantasy. Jesus and his followers were preaching a return to monotheism and devotion to God in a way that was a precursor to Muhammad's teachings. Islam, they maintain, corrects the corruptions of Christianity and gets back to what Jesus was really preaching.

Mormons got into the early-church-fantasy game by also claiming that both the Protestants and Catholics had lost their way. Evidently, God just sat back an watched his followers get it completely wrong for almost 2000 years before sending an angel to set Joseph Smith straight.

But before you laugh at the Mormons, remember that the "early church" fantasy requires a belief that Jesus watched all of you get it all wrong and apparently doesn't care to correct you in any way indistinguishable from the claims of Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or any other prophet who comes forward to say "God spoke to me and told me to tell you..."

Given how nostalgic and fuzzy notions of "the early church" are utilized by a wild variety of different denominations and even sects should be enough to warn us that they are based more on imagination and contrived interpretations of folklore than they are upon reliable historical data. As a matter of fact, as we look closely at what real historical data tells us of early Christianity (or, more accurately, early Christianities), we see a very different picture.

The Dubious Nature of Biblical Accounts
Christians may try to justify the nostalgia and fantasy that surrounds the fuzzy and romantic notions of "the early Church" with what is written in the NT, both the accounts of The Book of Acts and the epistles allegedly written by Paul and other early church fathers.

A skeptic who reads The Book of Acts can only wonder how anyone can take this book seriously as a historical account. Even by the standards of the other books of the Bible, it is drenched in angelic interventions, sorcery, overt miracles and even a cameo appearance by the Big Man Himself, complete with bright lights and a booming voice. One can barely turn a page without reading about some bit of woo or other. Yet, the very same god who continually rocks the world with supernatural pyrotechnics in Acts has gone quiet today now that we have the technology to both detect and record such disturbances to the natural order. Jesus promised that the faithful would be able to heal the sick and cast out demons, and indeed such things were done in Acts, and yet such a convincing demonstration can't be done today under medical peer review. Out of the billion-some-odd followers of Jesus, are there none with sufficient faith to even heal a paper-cut? Neither is there any independent historical account of the miracles of Acts, the apostasy of Saul of Tarsis or even the feats of the wandering Godman who supposedly walked the earth only a generation prior. If such miracles ever happened, we have no way of knowing about them except through Christian scripture.

The letters or epistles are barely any more reliable. Scholarship estimates that half the epistles attributed to Paul are of questionable authenticity. "Pseudo-epigraphy", a sophisticated way of saying "forgery", was a seriously problem in that day and age, particularly in religious writing. If you were an aspiring theologian and wanted to push a certain worldview or agenda, it was a common tactic to use the name of a more noted and respected church figure and "discover" the letter.

An easy example of this problem can be found when you compare the Book of Acts and the Gospel of Luke, both allegedly written by the same author. Luke's Gospel has Jesus rising up into the sky on the day of his resurrection but Acts says Jesus remained on earth 40 days before his dramatic departure into Heaven.

Luke 24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

One would think that the same author would remember such details with a bit more clarity. Such a continuity gaffe of such an important even is best explained by two different authors, or at the very least a later alteration by another author to one of these two books.

This brings me to the problem of "interpolation". Changes in scripture and other ancient writings creep in over time. Sometimes they are accidental. A scribe may accidentally change a word or misplace a sentence. This faulty copy is then copied and eventually becomes the new version. Other times, a deliberate change is introduced to further some theological or political agenda. Sometimes it's hard to say for certain whether such alterations are intended or not but what is certain is that they happen, particularly with religious writings where the agendas of the controlling clergy are so important.

Christians who like to believe that their current Bible is the original are not aware of just how much the book has changed over time. Mark chapter 16 originally ended at verse 8. Another 12 verses were later added to create a more satisfying ending. Bart Ehrman has discussed how Jesus' famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" moment in John was also a later addition.

The early church was fraught with political strife, even by the very accounts of the Bible as it exists today. Echoes of some of these struggles are found in scripture in the epistles of John. In not one but two of his three letters that have found their way into canon, John rails against the "false Christians" who preach that Jesus did not exist in the flesh (presumably the Docetic Christians). Apparently, devoted followers of Christ who lived only a generation after the time in which he walked the earth decided to ignore an obvious reality of his existence and decided he was only a spiritual apparition.

1John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2John verse 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

So what do we know?
If there was an "early church", it was crowded out by many different variations on the Christian theme. The Marcionites, the Ebionites, the Docetics and the followers of Arius to name a few each offered different ideas about who and what Jesus was and what he preached. The wild variety of early Christian theologies would make the distinctions between modern Christianity and Islam seem like petty hair splitting.

The followers of Marcion believed that Christians should ditch the OT and all things Jewish. They had nothing to do with the OT god Yahweh. He was a petty, inept god of this world. Jesus was the higher, more perfect god who came down to earth, fully formed as a man, as all other gods of the time did. Jesus, according to Marcion, had taken pity on humanity and offered a better way and certainly had no "father" nor any mortal parents like Mary. Salvation comes through keeping faith in this new god.

The Ebionites, by stark contrast, were the most Jewish of the early Christians. Jesus was a man, son of Mary and Joseph, and conceived as all other men are. At his baptism, he was adopted by God as a son and received the Holy Spirit. His sacrifice on the cross was only to fulfill all need for animal sacrificed. Salvation comes through keeping the OT laws.

The Docetics believed that the material world was evil and that the spiritual world was good. God, being spiritual and good, could not become material or flesh. This, to them, would be like a round square or a straight curve. It was a contradiction. Jesus existed only as an apparition. The word for this denomination is derived from "to seem".

The followers of Arius rejected the Trinity and maintained that Jesus was an angel, sent by God.

There are other early "heterodox" Christianities. Christian apologists do not deny they existed but try to downplay them as schismatics and heretics. Reject them as heretical all you like but it is clear that early Christians were not united in their ideas about Jesus or any other basic aspects of Christian theology.

Bottom line:
There was no one single "early Church" and any romantic notions about it are based at best on folklore.